Cryptography-Digest Digest #70, Volume #14 Tue, 3 Apr 01 20:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: patent this and patent that (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: patent this and patent that ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Data dependent arcfour via sbox feedback (Terry Ritter)
Re: patent this and patent that (Terry Ritter)
Re: patent this and patent that (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: patent this and patent that ("Ben Hamilton")
Re: Data dependent arcfour via sbox feedback ("Henrick Hellström")
How do I exchange the values of A and B (Mikito Harakiri)
Re: patent this and patent that ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: Idea - (LONG) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
Re: GCHQ turned me away...(we didn't think they understood) ("Douglas A. Gwyn")
patent issue ("Tom St Denis")
quick LFSR question (really simple question) ("Tom St Denis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: patent this and patent that
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:18:23 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Patents are protected by laws. You have to care, if your
> > designs have conflicts with some patents that are in
> > force in your country. If you can show that the patents
> > have not been properly granted because the materials
> > are prior art, i.e. have no novelty, then you may win in
> > court. Note however that one needs money to engage
> > lawyers before one wins. If you don't have sufficient
> > money, you are out from the very beginning in all cases.
>
> I would rather go to prison then have my thoughts dictated by some person
> obsessed with this fictional thing called "money". I think giving credit
> where credit is due is a good thing but restricting thought and development
> so you can be the only owner of something you thought of first...
>
> When it boils down to it I am penalized because I am younger... I could have
> thought of those ideas given the time and need. Of course this could
> promote "new" development it's still silly to have to re-invent the wheel
> because adding or xor or rotations are patented...
If you are not satisfied with any laws of your country,
you have to convince the politicians of your country
to do modifications or cancellations. Before you succeed
in that, you HAVE to care the laws that are in force
at the present moment. Whether you go to the prison
depends on the outcome of the legal processes. (You
may not even voluntarily go to the prison!)
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: patent this and patent that
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:28:08 GMT
"Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
> > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Patents are protected by laws. You have to care, if your
> > > designs have conflicts with some patents that are in
> > > force in your country. If you can show that the patents
> > > have not been properly granted because the materials
> > > are prior art, i.e. have no novelty, then you may win in
> > > court. Note however that one needs money to engage
> > > lawyers before one wins. If you don't have sufficient
> > > money, you are out from the very beginning in all cases.
> >
> > I would rather go to prison then have my thoughts dictated by some
person
> > obsessed with this fictional thing called "money". I think giving
credit
> > where credit is due is a good thing but restricting thought and
development
> > so you can be the only owner of something you thought of first...
> >
> > When it boils down to it I am penalized because I am younger... I could
have
> > thought of those ideas given the time and need. Of course this could
> > promote "new" development it's still silly to have to re-invent the
wheel
> > because adding or xor or rotations are patented...
>
> If you are not satisfied with any laws of your country,
> you have to convince the politicians of your country
> to do modifications or cancellations. Before you succeed
> in that, you HAVE to care the laws that are in force
> at the present moment. Whether you go to the prison
> depends on the outcome of the legal processes. (You
> may not even voluntarily go to the prison!)
When people realize that money is some fictious thing we invented because we
were too savage to stop killing each other for bread, then we shall be
"civil".
I would rather goto prision (even if I resist) to highlight such human
stupitidy such as patent laws and greed, etc... then sit passively and say
"wow IBM got 30,000 patents last year.... not bad".
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: Data dependent arcfour via sbox feedback
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:28:17 GMT
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:01:08 +0200, in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in sci.crypt Mok-Kong Shen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Savard wrote:
>>
>> Mok-Kong Shen<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Further, as I pointed out in another follow-up, many
>> >schemes in Chap. 16 and 17 of Schneier's AC combine two
>> >or more pseudo-random streams, i.e. two (or more) confusion
>> >sources, to produce a stream that is presumably stronger.
>> >i.e. a more-complex confusion result. Are these not in
>> >clear and unambiguious conflict with the patent?
>>
>> Dynamic Substitution is a _particular way_ of combining two streams.
>> XORing them together does not conflict with his patent.
>
>It is to be noted that xor is also a substitution and,
>if one utilizes feed back, then the substituion is
>'dynamic'.
I doubt I would describe that as "dynamic," but in any case it is not
Dynamic Substitution as formally described in the patent. Just
because the title of the patent is: "Dynamic Substitution Combiner and
Extractor," does not mean that it covers any possible thing which is
"dynamic" and also some form of "substitution." The coverage is
described in the claims, not the title.
You are going out of your way to deliberately misrepresent the patent.
Your claims about what it says do not make it say that. Like everyone
else, you have the opportunity to read the patent and to learn how to
interpret patent claims, if that is what you want to do. But since
you continue to misrepresent what is there, it seems that what you
really want to do is to whine, whine, whine about the unfairness of it
all, rather then acquiring the background necessary for understanding.
All of our legal systems have problems. But the patent system at
least puts the force of law in the hands of even tiny companies. In
open competition in a free market, the big guys normally win. I think
there is something to be said for an alternative, even if not ideal in
many ways.
In particular, I think the US government should undertake to prosecute
every granted US patent in foreign countries so that the same
limitations will apply across the global marketplace. I also think
the US government should have a department to help enforce the patent
grant. As I see it, the main problem with patents is not that they
are too strong and intrusive, but that they are not strong enough.
>As I noted elsewhere, any block cipher is
>substitution (of the block) and that CBC etc. introduces
>'dynamics' in them, there being feedback.
Oddly, just because you have "noted" something does not make it
correct. That handwave description -- using a block cipher as a
"substitution" -- is not Dynamic Substitution as defined in the
patent.
>Further, a
>classical polyalphabetical substitution effects a
>combination of the key stream and the plaintext stream.
>If one employs auto-key with such substitution one again
>has 'dynamics'.
The specific aspect of "dynamic" in Dynamic Substitution is the
permutation of values within a table. The table thus "changes," and
is in that sense "dynamic." Selecting a different table might be
"dynamic" in your personal language and your particular usage, but
that does not make it correspond to the coverage of the patent. The
title of the patent is not the coverage; to understand the coverage,
one must deal with the claims.
>Anyway, the extremely general formualtion
>in the patent of combining two streams to generate a more
>complicated stream has certainly at least the problem of
>confounding the readers.
All patents confound readers at the beginning. They are extremely
detailed and the arcane language has specialized meaning derived from
patent law. Often there is a general understanding which can avoid
the technical language of patent law, but generally one must have some
background to understand the limits. Some readers move on to accept
the law as a basis for understanding what is going on. Some don't,
and then just complain, complain, complain.
>If the patent specifies a very
>particular encryption that is really new, then there is
>nothing against the patenting. But then the formulation
>of the patent should also be correspondingly special and
>not use such general terms as we have seen in previous
>posts.
Alas, your interpretation of what should or should not be appropriate
for the US patent system does not correspond to reality. It is
probably silly for any small company to patent a detailed cipher,
because in that case, small changes in the design will avoid the
patent. The whole point of a patent is to create a limited-term
monopoly that cannot be avoided if one wishes to use the advance which
was disclosed. This supports the profit to repay the development
effort, profit to encourage new effort, and helps to protect the new
idea until it becomes established in the marketplace. And profit, of
course, is just business as usual.
>Note that the patent holder doesn't seem to be
>considering that his patent is about a very special scheme
>at all.
All we need to note whether Dynamic Substitution is "special" is to
count how many alternatives there are to building nonlinear dynamic
combiners.
So if you can be happy with something else, use it. But if you want a
nonlinear dynamic combiner -- especially a reversible combiner --
there is ample indication that my work is fairly "special."
>In fact in a number of his posts he claimed that
>the patent has rather general coverage.
The patent says what it says. It stands on its own and doesn't need
me to interpret it for you -- assuming you have the background to
interpret it for yourself.
There is a good reason a patent can be general, and that reason is
that it covers completely new art, and thus does not have prior art
which must be avoided. This is patenting as it is supposed to be: the
public disclosure -- and protection -- of completely new work.
>That's the problem.
The problem? Really? But since you live outside the US, you can just
steal my published ideas and even use them in your products -- as long
as you don't ship product to the US. So how is any of this a
"problem" for you? And if not for you, then who?
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter)
Subject: Re: patent this and patent that
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:50:28 GMT
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 21:59:56 GMT, in
<wJry6.10358$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in sci.crypt "Tom St
Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Tom St Denis wrote:
>> >
>> > Who the F$$$ cares about terry's (or anyone elses) patent anyways? They
>> > just are artificial means of getting in the way of serious coding.
>>
>> Patents are protected by laws. You have to care, if your
>> designs have conflicts with some patents that are in
>> force in your country. If you can show that the patents
>> have not been properly granted because the materials
>> are prior art, i.e. have no novelty, then you may win in
>> court. Note however that one needs money to engage
>> lawyers before one wins. If you don't have sufficient
>> money, you are out from the very beginning in all cases.
>
>I would rather go to prison then have my thoughts dictated by some person
>obsessed with this fictional thing called "money".
Patents are not about dictating "thoughts," and patents rarely have
anything to do with individuals. Patents *are* about money; they are
the right to sue to recover losses due to the theft of inventions that
someone produced, typically at considerable time and expense.
Unfortunately for the hopeful martyr, patents are civil law, and so
are not about "prison." But money becomes a lot more real when you
have none.
>I think giving credit
>where credit is due is a good thing but restricting thought and development
>so you can be the only owner of something you thought of first...
Patents are about disclosing ideas, not "restricting thought." The
economic alternative to patents is trade secrecy, not giving away the
results of expensive development for free. That only happens once,
and then there is no more money for development.
>When it boils down to it I am penalized because I am younger... I could have
>thought of those ideas given the time and need.
My, aren't we humble today. It's pretty easy to "invent" something
when that has already been done and the results start to become
generally understood.
But if inventing old things was so easy, maybe you should stretch a
little and invent some *new* things. Every generation has the task of
building on previous work and inventing things not previously
invented. This is one way society has of indicating that it is not
enough to just sit around and enjoy what previous generations have
provided for you. The natural state of Man is a great deal more
violent and brutish than Western civilization generally remembers, and
civilization has been carved out at a great expense which -- being
younger -- you have not had to pay.
>Of course this could
>promote "new" development it's still silly to have to re-invent the wheel
>because adding or xor or rotations are patented...
Please. Adding? XOR? Patented? I don't think so. I even doubt the
rotations. In fact, I doubt you have been inconvenienced at all.
---
Terry Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.io.com/~ritter/
Crypto Glossary http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: patent this and patent that
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:48:46 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> I would rather goto prision (even if I resist) to highlight such human
> stupitidy such as patent laws and greed, etc... then sit passively and say
> "wow IBM got 30,000 patents last year.... not bad".
I told you that it might be quite difficult to try
to go to prison. Committing some light-weight crimes
may not be sufficient for you to get free boarding
in a prison.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Ben Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: patent this and patent that
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 09:10:39 +1000
Your younger. So what.
They were once yonger too.
They had to deal with prior art as well.
Expand on the knowledge that is there. Read the patents, understand them,
figure out how to get around them, make them invalid, find a method that is
better. Isn't that the inventor/invovator method? (one of).
I'm 'young' too. Love it!
ben hamilton.
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wJry6.10358$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> When it boils down to it I am penalized because I am younger... I could
have
> thought of those ideas given the time and need. Of course this could
------------------------------
From: "Henrick Hellström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Data dependent arcfour via sbox feedback
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:13:19 +0200
"Terry Ritter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In particular, I think the US government should undertake to prosecute
> every granted US patent in foreign countries so that the same
> limitations will apply across the global marketplace. I also think
> the US government should have a department to help enforce the patent
> grant. As I see it, the main problem with patents is not that they
> are too strong and intrusive, but that they are not strong enough.
You are joking, right? France would declare nuclear war on USA for less. ;-)
--
Henrick Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
StreamSec HB http://www.streamsec.com
------------------------------
From: Mikito Harakiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How do I exchange the values of A and B
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:17:39 GMT
Is something along the lines below possible?
a = a.encrypt(b);
b = a.decrypt(a);
a = a.getKey();
or, maybe, some more symmetric version?
"Robert C. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Charlie Kilmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > How do I exchange the values
> > int A = x;
> > int B= y;
> >
> > here x and y are the values
> >
> > how do exchange the values so that
> > int A = y;
> > int B = x;
> >
> > --without using a temp to make it happen.
> >
>
> This is an old trick:
>
> A ^= B;
> B ^= A;
> A ^= B;
>
> (Where ^= is the xor/assignment operator)
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: patent this and patent that
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:32:13 GMT
Tom St Denis wrote:
> [Paraphrasing: I have never heard of the Golden Rule, or maybe I
> just don't believe I will ever invent anything that needs legal
> protection of my rights invested in my own invention.]
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Idea - (LONG)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:38:51 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> Bits that are constant and known to the opponent don't
> belong to the proper message to be encrypted.
Yes, they do, but you still miss the point. Even without
*any* plaintext bits being known a priori, if the source
exhibits any statistical regularity at all, r bits of key
can encrypt more than r bits of plaintext while maintaining
perfect secrecy a la Shannon. Reversing the connection:
Since almost every plaintext is in fact produced by a source
with relatively high redundancy, it is rarely that case that
as many as s bits of key are needed to absolutely secure s
bits of plaintext against all analysis.
------------------------------
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GCHQ turned me away...(we didn't think they understood)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:41:17 GMT
John Savard wrote:
> Lots harder to break, sure, but the claim that this cipher is in some
> sense 'perfect' is, I believe, unfortunate and unwarranted.
Indeed, there is more to secrecy than suppressing first-order
statistics. Very many breakable systems do a fine job of hiding
first-order statistics.
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: patent issue
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 23:56:20 GMT
Ok before I get strung up ... hehehehe
I think authors should get credit for their work. I don't think others
should use it without asking, that's just impolite. i think I can agree
they prevent loss of money. The problem is when non-profit tasks require
the device/algorithm etc...
Like when RSA "threatened" me briefly about including RC5 in my Peekboo
program.... I don't even live in the states and they couldn't do that
legally (although they only called once, once they realized I am some dorky
teen).
Bah... live long and code!
--
Tom St Denis
---
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: quick LFSR question (really simple question)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:09:59 GMT
I am using an LFSR on my i8032 for a test... I need to know if this is good
C code (i.e does the right LFSR)
/* expand using LFSR (0,3,9,10,12) */
for (x = 12; x < 76; ++x)
tmp[x] = tmp[x-12] ^ tmp[x-10] ^ tmp[x-9] ^ tmp[x-3];
The #'s represent the taps given by the LFSR maker I have found on the web.
I want to know if I interpreted the taps correctly.
Thanks,
--
Tom St Denis
---
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
